Reduced loads a receipe for disaster??

[parrott1969]

I keep seeing where people are using reduced loads and fillers. I keep wondering about S.E.E. ( secondary explossive effect). I know its real and can happen but it has never happened to me. This is one reason why I choose trail boss for reduced loads. Has anyone ever experienced it. Ever have anything bad happen using reduced loads?

[geargnasher]

I've educated myself on the causes and ways to avoid it and have so far never had it happen. Certain use of fillers, according to strict guidelines, can in some instances make a safer load, but observing basic case capacity vs. burn rate rules is the best way to go.

Stick to published data and you'll be fine.

Gear

[uscra112]

Larry Gibson has posted some good commentary, with links, on the dread S.E.E.

Turns out the real thing is not so much a result of light loads per se, but rather a result of less-than-max loads of certain slow and hard-to-ignite powders, combined with a "false start" of the bullet, driven out of the case by primer pressure alone. The bullet starts, but gets stopped in the throat by the engraving force, thereby becoming a bore obstruction. This has been seen in pressure-gun data under controlled conditions.

The real culprit in blowups of light-loaded cartridges is the double charge. It can happen, and does happen. It has nothing to do with airspace (talking smokeless powders here - black is a different animal), or any magical "detonation" due to "shock waves". Just too much powder in the case.

Shooters who don't want to believe (or admit) they could ever make a mistake will blame S.E.E., but unless they're using certain slow powders combined with weak or no crimp, they will be wrong.

Double charges happen. I caught one myself just a couple of months ago, just as I was about to seat the boolit.

Stick to using Trail Boss, if that gives you confidence. For myself, I haven't found it to give me the accuracy and S.D. performance that denser powders do, so I rely on a series of "process control" steps to prevent double charges from reaching the chamber(s) of my gun(s). Makes me a very slow reloader, but so far a safe one. In a good few years of reloading, that one I just caught was the first one to get that far. (Reminded me not to get complacent though - you betcha it did!)

[303Guy]

I've used reduced loads of H4350 in my 303 Brit with filler (not Dacron) and it seemed to raise the pressure and produce a clean burn with as low as 60% load density. The filler (wheat bran) was reducing the case volume and forming a wad behind the boolit. Faster powders like H4227 and single base pistol powders should have no more than a powder positioner like Dacron. I have used wheat bran filler with H4227 and it worked fine.

I suspect that some instances of SEE are actually double charges and also unpowdered cases pushing the boolit into the throat and another being loaded behind it. I've done it but was lucky in that the case was full and the bullet would push back into the case stopping the round from chambering.

It's not only reduced loads of slow powder that produce SEE. Some ammunition manufacture developed a load for the 6.5 Swede using a test barrel but when they tested it in a real rifle they got a SEE! I think they tested the real rifle after reports of SEE's came in from the public.

[Junior1942]

My solution is to charge the cases in or put them in a loading block. Then look down inside all the cases even if you need a flashlight. And try to find a load with which a double charge will overflow the case. Another trick is to drop an eraser-down pencil in every case.

[Bret4207]

I think the double charge is more of a hazard than SEE if using industry generated loading date. I've had double charges. I still don't know how I did it. I have yet to have an SEE event, but I don't use the real slow, hard to start powders either.

Good loading practices can surely help- check the charge, top the charged case with a boolit right off, whatever. I thought I had a fail safe system, but I got a double anyway. Stuff happens.

[Larry Gibson]

303Guy

I suspect that some instances of SEE are actually double charges and also unpowdered cases pushing the boolit into the throat and another being loaded behind it. I've done it but was lucky in that the case was full and the bullet would push back into the case stopping the round from chambering.

Those may be called "SEE" but they are not actually SEE. SEE is caused from a combination of specific reasons/events. Double and even tripple charging (it happens with some older progressive presses) is a seperate event as is chambering and firing another cartridge with a bullet, cleaning rod, patch, mud, etc. stuck in te bore.

It's not only reduced loads of slow powder that produce SEE. Some ammunition manufacture developed a load for the 6.5 Swede using a test barrel but when they tested it in a real rifle they got a SEE! I think they tested the real rifle after reports of SEE's came in from the public.[/QUOTE]

The 6.5 Swede incident is the crux of the SEE article I've posted numerous times. The factory load was initially developed in a SAAMI spec test barrel with a much tighter and shorter throat. The was developed with a new slow burning powder. Testing with a CUP or piezo transducer test fixture is a slow and tedious procedure which is ok for most initial load development. However, with the advent of the simpler and much faster strain guage measurementation most manufacturers use that method to test production samples and to verify velocities and pressures in actual production firearms. The Oehler M83 is most often used or a similar instrument.

In the case of the SEE in discussion the manufacturer found the potential problem during normal testing with the strain gauge on a milsurp rifle. The ammuntition was recalled. New loads were developed with a faster burning and more readily ignited powder which alleviated the problem. I don't recall any SEEs occuring with that ammunition? Such is the case with numerous recalls of factory ammuntion we see these days. Most problems are found with testing using the strain gauge using production firearms. Testing of production ammuntion is much more prevalent now than in the past due to the availability of strain gauge intruments.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

I might add that many reduced loads if a double or even tripple charge are accidently used are not an "automatic recipe for disaster". Many such low end loads with fast powders are are less than 1/2 or even less than 1/3 of what a max load with the same powder under the same bullet may be. Thus a double or even a tripple charge may many times pose no particular hazard.

I'll also add that the use of TB is not fail safe. In some types of firearms using cartridges of large capacity or with heavy bullets pressures can easily be over max if one follows the common thought; just fill the case with TB, seat the bullet and go shooting" .

Larry Gibson

[Stephen Cohen]

My solution is to charge the cases in or put them in a loading block. Then look down inside all the cases even if you need a flashlight. And try to find a load with which a double charge will overflow the case. Another trick is to drop an eraser-down pencil in every case.

I have never put a bullet in a case without doing this. I may be slow but my guns dont have bulged barrels.

[Rocky Raab]

Larry is correct. There are many causes for over-pressure excursions; SEE is only one of those causes.

Ballisticians have detected and known about standing pressure waves in cartridges since the late 1890s. (Yes, I typed that correctly.) They develop with much-reduced charges of very slow powders. To avoid an SEE, never reduce loads of slow powders below book "Start" levels.

Other causes of burst guns or burst cartridges include double charges, improper use of fillers, wrong powder, weak cases, bore obstructions, wrong cartridge for the gun, and several more.

All such problems are avoidable.

For the record, I NEVER use loading blocks. It is far too easy to have visual confusion when looking at a group of nearly identical objects. I charge one case, check the powder level visually and then immediately seat the bullet. Zero chance of making a visual error.

[44man]

I've used reduced loads of H4350 in my 303 Brit with filler (not Dacron) and it seemed to raise the pressure and produce a clean burn with as low as 60% load density. The filler (wheat bran) was reducing the case volume and forming a wad behind the boolit. Faster powders like H4227 and single base pistol powders should have no more than a powder positioner like Dacron. I have used wheat bran filler with H4227 and it worked fine.

I suspect that some instances of SEE are actually double charges and also unpowdered cases pushing the boolit into the throat and another being loaded behind it. I've done it but was lucky in that the case was full and the bullet would push back into the case stopping the round from chambering.

It's not only reduced loads of slow powder that produce SEE. Some ammunition manufacture developed a load for the 6.5 Swede using a test barrel but when they tested it in a real rifle they got a SEE! I think they tested the real rifle after reports of SEE's came in from the public.
My friend and I each had an SEE event with Swedes. Locked the bolts and blew the primer pockets huge, we never found the primers. Both of us were using the most accurate load of 46 gr of 4831 with 129 gr bullets. Mid load, max is 48 gr. We had no rifle damage. I had changed the barrel on mine and set for minimum head space, shot it for years until that one time.
The problem is the long lead to the rifling. The bullet moved and stopped or stuttered at the rifling. That does two things, it creates a bore obstruction and increases air space. It might be a once in a million thing but it is real. A new 6.5 with proper lead to rifling will not do it unless you reduce the slow powder too much.
I went to 47 gr of powder, worked fine but lost accuracy. I switched to Varget and got back accuracy good enough to hit 20 ga shotgun shells every shot at 100, 1/2" groups.
We need to talk about the revolver with weak case tension and slow powders like 296. Mag primers can move a boolit before ignition and push it to the rifling where it can stop but the gap is saving your butt by releasing pressures. I do not use a mag primer until brass is large enough to handle the primer pressure so the .44 and .45 Colt use standard primers. Why are they more accurate? Because they remove boolit movement variations and air space changes. It is why I use harder lead to get better case tension.
It is hard to explain to revolver shooters that most shots with wrong loading practices is a potential SEE event and your angel is the gap. The Swede problem is also the gap with no place for pressure to escape except the firing pin hole.
All SEE events are caused by a bore obstruction no matter how short, right at pressure peak.
Since every load was weighed for the Swedes and you can not double charge 4831, you need to think about it. We seated bullets long so would crimping in the cannelure help?
Will a filler save you? I don't think so, not if a bullet stops a millisecond. Filler adds weight to give powder a chance to light and push evenly but it also resists primer pressure that can reach a boolit. That is why a full charge of slow powder is better, it resists primer pressure from blowing through it and jumping a bullet.
Remember my troubles with the SR mag primer with starting loads of 296 in the .454? The boolit blew into the barrel with unburned powder behind it. What would happen if the powder decided to light off? This stuff scares me so notice I solved the problem with a LP mag primer for accuracy but even a standard LP primer lit all loads.
Never ignore this stuff. Way too many dangerous loading practices are promoted because someone will say they do it all the time.

[Char-Gar]

Larry and Rocky as spot on about SEE and multiple causes of over pressure firearms failures. They are indeed avoidable and only take place due to ignorance, carelessness or at times equipment that does not allow you to visualy check the powder charge.

I am not loading block adverse, but I do take a strong light and eyeball every case and charge in the block before seating the bullet. I do this 100% of the time and never take a short cut.

In over 50 years of handloading of close to a million rounds of handloads, I have had only one overloaded round and that was because of a brief flirtation with a progressive press, that didn't allow me to look into each case. I sold that press down river and will never have another.

In response to the OP, the use of smaller charges of powder with a filler do not produce any chance of SEE, IF you use the proper powder for that application.

[plainsman456]

As far as loading blocks causing problems,I turn the cases upside down,then when charged with a weighed powder charge it has a projectile loaded.
That way you don't need to use a flashlight.

But what ever you do,check,double check and check again.
Your hands and face are a terrible thing to waste.

[1Shirt]

Agree with Bret on the factor of the dangers of a double charge of fast pdr being more of a danger than the use of fill. I am a firm believer in weighing all cartridges loaded with charges that fill less than one half of the case to the case mouth. An extra step, but well worth the time. A double charge, from experiance, is no fun, and could be fatal. I went many, many, years without a double charge, but experiance does not prevent errors and mistakes.

I am also a user of dac fill rifle cases with powders starting with 2400 and slower.
1Shirt:coffeecom

[44man]

A double charge is always a danger no doubt but you are not looking at the SEE problem at all. It is real, it happens, so you can not blame a double charge.
Two entirely different things.

[Texantothecore]

Several points:

SEE seems to be a problem with slower powders but not so much with faster.
Hodgon did tests to recreate the situation and were successful. Their conclusion is that there is no such thing as SEE but there is a situation in which a slower powder will fire twice, the first will fire off the powder that has been blown into the air by the primer and then a second firing will happen to the powder that is in the bottom of the case. The first firing sticks the bullet and obstructs the bore, the second more powerful explosion wrecks the breech and barrel.

There has been almost no problem with the faster powers as they go into the air completely as designed and fire all at once.

For my own guns I do use trail boss as it is designed for this application and it seems to work well. I also use roundball for light loads as it about 1/3 of the lead of the normal bullet and a roundball has very little engraving and drag in the barrel. Because of its low Ballistic coeffocient (around .07) it requires very little engraving to spin the roundball up to speed.

Just my .02....some of it is science and some of it is "Kentucky Windage".

[44man]

Several points:

SEE seems to be a problem with slower powders but not so much with faster.
Hodgon did tests to recreate the situation and were successful. Their conclusion is that there is no such thing as SEE but there is a situation in which a slower powder will fire twice, the first will fire off the powder that has been blown into the air by the primer and then a second firing will happen to the powder that is in the bottom of the case. The first firing sticks the bullet and obstructs the bore, the second more powerful explosion wrecks the breech and barrel.

There has been almost no problem with the faster powers as they go into the air completely as designed and fire all at once.

For my own guns I do use trail boss as it is designed for this application and it seems to work well. I also use roundball for light loads as it about 1/3 of the lead of the normal bullet and a roundball has very little engraving and drag in the barrel. Because of its low Ballistic coeffocient (around .07) it requires very little engraving to spin the roundball up to speed.

Just my .02....some of it is science and some of it is "Kentucky Windage".
It describes 'Secondary Explosive Effect" to a "T".

[utk]

To verify the powder level in rifle cases placed in a loading block, I use a pencil with an O-ring located approximately 1/4" above case mouth when correct amount of powder.

That way I can easily detect an under- or overcharge without straining my eyes looking down every case with a flashlight.
And with a lesser chance of missing one case as I'm sitting comfortably and "walking the probe" row after row of cases.

[x101airborne]

In fact it happened to me!
Ruger Redhawk 44 mag
270 gr. gold dot soft points
reduced charge of H-110 (well below book starting loads)
Winchester magnum primer.

Weapon tore itself out of my hands and I sent it back to Ruger for an inspection. I thank God I wasn't shooting a smith when I was more ignant.

[turbo1889]

I ended the life of an 8mm Mauser rifle with an SEE event when I was younger and a lot dumber with a knuckle head cast boolit load before I knew hardly anything about cast boolits.

At that time it was my understanding that cast boolits required a significantly reduced charge compared to regular bullets and so I simply took a book max load for R-15 powder and loaded half of that under the cast boolits (commercial cast). Did not work out as I expected it to at all and although the gun held and didn't blow up in my face the action was permanently damaged beyond repair in that the locking lugs of the bolt were driven back into the action damaging both the lugs and their seats in the action and the chamber was "ringed".

So, yes, it can and does happen even with cast boolits although it is my understanding that it is more common with jacketed bullets if you put together a dumb enough combination.

[Rocky Raab]

While the two-phase ignition is probably correctly described, there is no such thing as "some powder being blown into the air" inside a cartridge case. Powder is very light and primers are very powerful in such a closed space. You can't puff air with your lips on a pile of powder and have only some of it tossed around.

What happens with a severely reduced charge is that the primer blows all the powder forward, compressing it into almost a solid cake. The bullet might be displaced a bit as well, jamming into the lands. Some of the powder at the rear ignites, but not much. Enough, however, to raise the temp and pressure to the point where - after a measurable but often imperceptible delay - the solid plug of powder burns. The powder plug and the bullet block the bore, and...

[Char-Gar]

Handloading is like packing your own parachute. If you are careful and know what your are doing than it is the best way to go, as you know it is done right. If you are less that absolutely careful and/or have a dose of dumb#$$, then you will get yourself killed or maimed.

There are many, many people that should not be allowed to touch a reloading press or stand within ten feet of a can of powder, box of bullets or primers. I have noticed a few that pop in on this board from time to time.

[Rocky Raab]

Amen, my friend.

[DrCaveman]

It seems that the take home message here is: use fast powders for reduced loads.

Filler use? 50/50 pro/con
Individually weigh/meter each charge? 100% agree
Visually verify charge? About 99% agree

Seems that should put someone on a safe track. Oh, and try to find a load that at least a couple of reliable people can testify to having safely used.

[Larry Gibson]

There is a time, place and use for an appropriate filler. There are times when a filler should not be used. I have made my position quite clear in my post on the topic in the sticky "filler".

Larry Gibson

[Char-Gar]

It seems that the take home message here is: use fast powders for reduced loads.

Filler use? 50/50 pro/con
Individually weigh/meter each charge? 100% agree
Visually verify charge? About 99% agree

Seems that should put someone on a safe track. Oh, and try to find a load that at least a couple of reliable people can testify to having safely used.

Two comments on the above;

1. The filler issue is quite complex and not as simple as pro or con. Again the answer is ...it depends..

2. As a general premise, taking loading data from individuals on the Internet is a bone headed idea. Just because they have no blow up a gun or lost and eye does not mean it is safe. They also might be lieing through their teeth. That is a frequent occurance on gun boards. Loading manuals use pressure tested data.

[DrCaveman]

Indeed, char gar

When lurking into unreported waters, you must take what you can get. Knuckleheads may abound, but if I get three knuckleheads saying they shot 12 gr unique behind a 405 gr 45-70 boolit then I rest easier than if I had found no discussion at all. And at the end of the day who really knows if they are knuckleheads anyway? Maybe the best secret load out there.

While i will NOT recommend going outside published data for the newcomer, I will state that most of my favorite reduced rifle loads are not printed by Lyman, lee, hornady, or nosler. Search this forum, check the history of those whose advice you like, and heed their experience.

Strict avoidance of un-published loads is contrary to the experience of cast boolits. Make friends or demand pictures or whatever. You will learn a ton but be very sure you know how to judge what you are doing.

[303Guy]

Very wisely stated, DrCaveman.


Hodgon did tests to recreate the situation and were successful. Their conclusion is that there is no such thing as SEE but there is a situation in which a slower powder will fire twice, the first will fire off the powder that has been blown into the air by the primer and then a second firing will happen to the powder that is in the bottom of the case. The first firing sticks the bullet and obstructs the bore, the second more powerful explosion wrecks the breech and barrel.That's a bit contradictory. They say there is no such thing as a SEE then go on to describe a SEE. Doh! Well obviously they are using a different definition of a SEE. What is their definition?

[44man]

Very wisely stated, DrCaveman.

That's a bit contradictory. They say there is no such thing as a SEE then go on to describe a SEE. Doh! Well obviously they are using a different definition of a SEE. What is their definition?
The main reason is that I don't think anyone has duplicated SEE in the lab but they have with a gun.
It is one of those things that the best guess is as good as any. My best guess it is early bullet movement with too much air space thrown in. Will primer pressure penetrate too fast through loose slow powder that is harder to ignite and pop a bullet out? Nobody knows is the best answer!
Are there two ignitions? I don't think so because I think it is a stopped bullet with reversed pressure. My best answer!
It also seems a long lead is more prone to fail with a normal load (The Swede seems more prone then most because you can't reach the rifling with normal bullets.) but any gun can go with reduced loads of slow powder. The bad thing about it is some can do it for years and years and get away with it but in the end, it only takes one time.
Reading the rest of this thread has shown great respect of safety and that is all I care about. Good job fellas!

[XWrench3]

i have read about it also, but i have never seen it or had it happen. if i am aware of the possibility (h110) i make sure i am in the middle of the load range. a few fps one way or the other is not worth loosing a gun or body parts over! i have done my share of reduced loads over the last few years especialy. the worst that i have had happen is a few stuck bullets , knock on wood!

[Char-Gar]

Indeed, char gar

When lurking into unreported waters, you must take what you can

Strict avoidance of un-published loads is contrary to the experience of cast boolits. Make friends or demand pictures or whatever. You will learn a ton but be very sure you know how to judge what you are doing.

I fully acknowledge that we live in times, when inexperienced handloaders mine date on the Internet from unknown individuals. For certain that is very common.

There are some things I could say about the ramifications of the practice, but I will just acknowledge the current reality and move on. Anything I could say about the practice would just produce more heat than light.

[Texantothecore]

Very wisely stated, DrCaveman.

That's a bit contradictory. They say there is no such thing as a SEE then go on to describe a SEE. Doh! Well obviously they are using a different definition of a SEE. What is their definition?

Their point, I believe, is that there is no standing wave formed, nothing magical: Just a bore obstruction.

[Texantothecore]

While the two-phase ignition is probably correctly described, there is no such thing as "some powder being blown into the air" inside a cartridge case. Powder is very light and primers are very powerful in such a closed space. You can't puff air with your lips on a pile of powder and have only some of it tossed around.

What happens with a severely reduced charge is that the primer blows all the powder forward, compressing it into almost a solid cake. The bullet might be displaced a bit as well, jamming into the lands. Some of the powder at the rear ignites, but not much. Enough, however, to raise the temp and pressure to the point where - after a measurable but often imperceptible delay - the solid plug of powder burns. The powder plug and the bullet block the bore, and...

If you look up SEE on search you will find that one of our members was present at one of these events that involved an Army member and a pistol. An ordnance expert questioned him very thoroughly about the movements of the shoter just prior to trigger pull. The expert concluded that the powder (unique) had been stacked in back of the bullet at the time of firing and he felt that this was the cause of the explosion. I am not sure how this would match Hodgdon's research.

Pure speculation:

1. Some powders are position sensitive which would lead me to believe that the powder in a reduced load does not necessarily stack up behind the bullet.

2. (I am not sure of this and await correction of those who are experienced with faster pistol and shotgun powder). A faster powder may be faster due to its production as a flake powder (which has a very high surface or burning area compared to its mass). The flake also has high sail area compared to its mass and would tend to go into the air inside the cartridge much easier than ball powder.

[Texantothecore]

If you look up SEE on search you will find that one of our members was present at one of these events that involved an Army member and a pistol. An ordnance expert questioned him very thoroughly about the movements of the shooter just prior to trigger pull. The expert concluded that the powder (unique) had been stacked in back of the bullet at the time of firing and he felt that this was the cause of the explosion. I am not sure how this would match Hodgdon's research.

Pure speculation:

1. Some powders are position sensitive which would lead me to believe that the powder in a reduced load does not necessarily stack up behind the bullet.

2. (I am not sure of this and await correction of those who are experienced with faster pistol and shotgun powder). A faster powder may be faster due to its production as a flake powder (which has a very high surface or burning area compared to its mass) and as a result the flake also has high sail area compared to its mass and would tend to go into the air inside the cartridge much easier than sayball powder.

[Char-Gar]

Folks have been fussing about SEE for as long as I can remember. Some folks say it doesn't exist, and other have their pet theories of why it happens.

With the advent of breach loading artillary, SEE became issue to content with for atilllarymen. It is well know in that field. You won't find folks in that area saying it doesn't exist.

I hold the opinion that for whatever reason, the projectile starts to move before the main charge fully ignites. Said projectile then slows or stops and get hit again by the main charge. For reasons I don't pretend to understand, this send pressures way past the red line.

We have experienced some issues in cast bullet rifle shooting and reasonable charges of fast powders when using Winchester Magnum Primers. The primer start the bullet moving before the "big push" as Phil Sharpe called it, takes over. This can be very dangerous. For whatever reason, this business of a bullet starting and then slowing or stoping before being hit again with the main charge is something not to be ignored.

Hatcher ran tests of firing a loaded round in a rifle with a bullet stuck in the barrel and didn't blow up any rifles, but that is different that what we are talking about here.

[Rocky Raab]

If you ask a genuine lab ballistician, he will tell you that they can pretty much create an SEE event at will. With peak pressures hitting 100,000 psi, they understandably don't risk their lab equipment doing it on a regular basis.

While explaining exactly what happens inside the round when it occurs is largely speculation, the fact that such events occur is beyond debate; they can and do.

[1Shirt]

T'aint no reason not to be as safe as possible! Safety is a smart practice! Not to practice safety is stupid!
1Shirt!

[tomme boy]

Whats the deal with Winchester Mag primers causing this to happen?

[44man]

Whats the deal with Winchester Mag primers causing this to happen?
All primers have a lot of pressure by themselves. Most will drive a boolit into the bore. The best is a primer with the least pressure but a lot of fire.
It is why I use a standard primer in the .44 and .45 Colt with 296. I only go to the mag when the case gets larger. I try to limit boolit movement from the primer alone and I also use a harder boolit with a lot of case tension.
Hatcher was also correct with the two bullet tests but the bullet in the bore must be in contact with the bullet behind it, no gap allowed.
Weatherby tested the Mark V that way.

[Don1955]

All I know is I do believe in the SEE presure wave. Micheal on AR Big Bore web site has measured it in Double rifles, repeatably.
Thats good enough for me.
Like wise H110/296 data has always said do not reduce loads.
Case closed on that one. I tried uncharted territory on the 300 blackout with long ww2 tracers and h110. Gumbed up the action and BCG so bad I gave up on that and went to faster pistol powders. IMR 4227 works best for me.
I currently load 36 gr. of Bluedot behind a 500 pb cast in my 500 Jeffery.
1534 avg vel with 41 ES, and 14 SD and thats for 15 rounds.
I also use data for starting loads for the 416 rigby from 378 Wby data out of the old lyman cast book.
Same thing applys for the 458 lott,375 H&H, 45-90 sharps and 45-70 in a marlin.
I dislike trail boss for big bores as it spikes.
Just my .02